Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-07-PB-min Minutes for the Meeting of November 7, 2012 Page 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2012 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Richard Canale with members Michelle Ciccolo, Greg Zurlo, and Charles Hornig and planning staff Maryann McCall- Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. Wendy Manz joined the meeting in progress. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING Rangeway Extension, Definitive Plan: Mr. Canale called the public hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Ed Grant, attorney; Mr. Fred Russell, engineer; Mr. and Mrs. Jim Raymond, Ms. Doris Duff, owners; and Mr. Fred Gilgun, attorney were present. There were approximately 10 people in the audience. Mr. Grant said this was the third definitive plan submission. The first was in 2003 and denied by the Planning Board and appealed by the applicant. As part of the Land Court proceedings the Board agreed to revisit the plan on remand. The second definitive plan was filed in July 2010, but withdrawn in March 2011. The applicant has incorporated all the suggestions that were made at that time in the current submission. The applicants have reached out to Rangeway abutters and a copy of the letter was submitted. Mr. Russell said the current plan proposes to create a T-shape turn around providing access for fire trucks, a retaining wall four feet tall, drainage in the roadway for site runoff and onsite for the proposed house in the driveway. A landscape plan was submitted with this application showing a buffer area and the removal and addition of trees. The stormwater management checklist showed the project was in compliance and approved by the Engineering Department, which included additional catch basins at the very end of Rangeway and the infiltration system relocated five feet off the sewer main with six feet of cover over the existing sewer lines. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 7, 2012 Board Comments:  Was an alternate location for the sewer infiltration system being considered? Fred Russell would look into that.  There was concern about the placement of the wall over the existing sewer line. Mr. Russell met with the Town Engineer and the concern was about the amount of cover from base of wall to top of existing sewer line, which was proposed at six feet of cover and approved by Engineering.  The wall would make it difficult for snow removal and storage; there should be a clear plan for snow removal and storage in the turnaround without any added burden to the Town.  Would there be a commitment to forbid parking in the turnaround? Fred Russell said signs would be posted.  There should be actual confirmation that the truck used in study was as big as the Town’s fire truck.  If repairs were needed to the sewer line there should be an agreement with the applicant to require the property owner to assemble and dissemble the retaining wall. Fred Russell said that was reasonable.  DPW would need an alternative access for vehicles to the area past the end of Rangeway on their sewer easement.  Stedman Road and Rockville Avenue were not intended as precedents; each lot was considered individually. Use of turnaround easements in those decisions was temporary since those roads could be built as through roads later. This proposal was different since the road could not continue on.  If the road was routed in the center line it might save the 30-inch oak tree. Fred Russell would look into it, but was concerned about having to remove the neighbors retaining wall and an 18-inch oak tree.  The grade of the road would be better at 8% rather then the 15%. Mr. Grant will look into that.  The pedestrian path to conservation land should be shown on the next plan. Minutes for the Meeting of November 7, 2012 Page 3  The drainage study does not cover the entire area being improved -- expand the drainage study to include the impacts of all the road work being done from where the LEXHAB improvements end.  The utility pole appears to be on town land and must be removed or relocated unless an easement can be obtained.  There should be granite curbing for slopes more then 5%.  More trees would be needed if the road was centered.  The infiltration system in area one does not have an overflow, which is required.  Did Engineering say the wall would retain the road? Fred Russell said Engineering was comfortable with it.  There should be a street light at the end of the road.  Has there been any conversation with the Conservation Commission regarding the wall on their property? Mr. Russell would contact the Conservation Commission.  Was a frontage waiver requested? Mr. Grant said this lot was a grandfathered lot and did not know one was needed, but would add it to the list.  A flow diffuser at the end of the pipe should be added for erosion control prevention. Audience Comments:  Was there a legal means to make sure snow stayed on the private lot?  How would the wall be maintained if it became defaced?  If there was to be an accumulation at the wall of leaves how would they be removed to prevent them from clogging up drains and how would the wall be maintained? If a car slammed into the wall during an ice storm, who would be responsible to replace or repair it? Mr. Grant said the maintenance and drainage operations would be the responsibility of the property owners.  Drainage concerns were significant because of the large slope; was there enough analysis of the site done? Abutters do not want to end up with a swamp.  Abutters would welcome the owners reaching out to them. The privacy screening that now exists would need to be reestablished. Board Comments:  Provide operation and maintenance agreements.  Provide a blow-up where road meets with the bermed wall and include wall thickness. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of November 7, 2012  There should be specific language showing an agreement on the wall maintenance.  There should be a drainage plan showing the revised plan.  The list of waivers submitted should include justifications. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to December 5, 2012, in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 8:00 p.m. The applicant should submit a written request to extend the action deadline. **********************ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA)*********************** Comments to the ZBA on 95-99 Hayden Avenue and 124-128 Spring Street: Board Comments:  The original rezoning of the CD district was with one owner. Now that there are two owners both are responsible to the obligations committed to in the Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan (PSDUP). How each owner will take responsibility for the obligations should be clearly outlined.  A process to define and measure ambient and future noise levels, as well as any future restrictions on noise generated by potential future uses of the site, should be clearly stated and agreed to by the property owners.The PSDUP states that the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) should be consulted about the construction of the green wall so the resulting design will meet the outlined goals. The DAC should also be consulted about the requested modification to the façade facing the Woodhaven neighborhood, as well as the change in the exterior lighting fixtures so not to adversely impact the residential abutters.  The 2009 MOU requires placement of “no left turn” signs prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Board feels their placement should take into account any findings in the South Lexington Traffic Study, which is now underway.  The additional easement permitting the extension of the pedestrian trail from Munroe Road to Spring Street should be executed as soon as possible so the responsible parties can begin work on the construction of the trail. The recommendations listed will be submitted by staff to the ZBA from the Planning Board. **********************ZONING BYLAWS (ZBL) REWRITE ************************ Ms. Manz joined the meeting in progress. Minutes for the Meeting of November 7, 2012 Page 5 Chapter Definitions and Administration: Tonight the Board continued to discuss some of the proposed changes to definitions and administrative procedures with Mr. Bobrowski as submitted by Mr. Hornig and planning staff. The Board discussed instances where some items should be placed in regulations. The details should go into the regulations and standards in the ZBL. Mr. Bobrowski cautioned the Board not to use regulations as an escape hatch. The proposed public draft will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting December 5, 2012, to discuss with Mr. Bobrowski. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* Rockville Avenue extension, performance guarantee modification: The applicant requested the release of $82,541 from the $97,108 held as a cash deposit leaving a balance of $14,567 covering the essential infrastructure within the development. There was a spread sheet of details submitted showing the items that were completed and inspected within the development. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to reduce the cash deposit from $97,108 to $14,567 for the Rockville Avenue extension. ******************************** STAFF REPORTS***************************** On Thursday November 15, 2012, there will be a Housing Production Plan Forum Meeting and staff would like the Board Members to attend if possible. ******************************** BOARD REPORTS***************************** Mr. Canale said there will be a TIF group meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. with the Board of Selectmen to see where they are with the TIF. Mr. Hornig will not be at the Planning Board Meeting and suggested that the Board Members only support the TIF if there is an extraordinary benefit to the Town. There will be a Vistaprint meeting this Saturday. ******************** BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE*********************** The Board will be meeting November 19, 2012 in the Planning Office at 6:00 p.m. prior to Town Meeting and December 5 & 19, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. December Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of November 7, 2012 5 will be a sketch plan for Lincoln Street and Middle Street at 7:30 p.m., Rangeway review at 8:00 p.m. and discussion with Mark Bobrowski on the proposed public draft of the ZBL. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Agenda Item Summary and Staff recommendation Rockville Avenue extension (2 pages).  Agenda Item Summary and Staff recommendation for Rangeway Extension Definitive Development Plan (2 pages).  Letters from Linda Dixon and Stephen Shick regarding Rangeway (8 pages).  Proposed waivers for Rangeway extension. (3 pages).  Turning templates for Rangeway extension (3 pages).  Letter to abutters from Suzanne and James Raymond, dated April 29, 2012, regarding Rangeway extension (2 pages).  Definitive Subdivision plans for Rangeway extension dated October 19, 2012 (3 pages).  Memorandum from BSC Group, regarding 95-99 Hayden Road and 124-128 Spring Street traffic impact study (2 pages).  Letter and renderings from JCG Architecture, dated November 2, 2012, regarding 95-99 Hayden Road and 124-128 Spring Street (3 pages).  Letter and renderings from JCG Architecture, dated November 5, 2012, regarding 95-99 Hayden Road and 124-128 Spring Street (3 page).  Site construction plans, dated April 17, 2009, for Ledgemont Three, 97 Hayden Avenue (1 page).  Staff and Mr. Hornig’s proposed changes to sections 10 & 11 of the zoning bylaws (34 pages). Michelle Ciccolo, Clerk